The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTC Res 1992-11-18 (2) r r ~ RESOLUTION NO. 2891 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON DENYING AN APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO DENY SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR 185 GILMARTIN DRIVE (AGINS/KURATEK) WHEREAS, on July 23 and September 10, 1992, the Design Review Board ("DRB") held duly noticed public hearings to consider an application by Ms. Bonnie Agins and Mr. Ray Kuratek to construct a new single family home with various accessory structures at 185 Gilmartin Drive; and WHEREAS, after fully considering the application and all revisions made by the applicants, the relevant ordinances and regulations, the 1988 settlement agreement and all other oral, written and documentary evidence submitted and the fact that the applicants demanded a decision rather than make further changes, the DRB denied the application; and WHEREAS, the matter was continued to the DRB meeting of September 24, 1992, so that staff could prepare a written resolution, which resolution was adopted with modifications that night; and and WHEREAS, the DRB's decision was appealed by the applicants in a timely manner; WHEREAS, the Town Council held a noticed public hearing on November 4, 1992. The hearing was conducted de novo and the applicants and other witnesses were allowed to present new evidence. After considering all of the new evidence and testimony as well as the record from the DRB, the Council by a vote of 4-1 (Kuhn, Friedman, Nygren and Thayer-yes; Thompson-no) voted to deny the appeal with prejudice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon that the appeal from the decision of the DRB denying site plan and architectural approval for 185 Gilmartin Drive is denied and the DRB's decision denying the application is affirmed based on the following findings: 1. The application was processed and reviewed pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Donald and Bonnie Agins and the Town of Tiburon, dated April 6, 1988. Based on Section 3.0 of that agreement, the application was reviewed under the policies, standards, ordinances and laws adopted by the Town as of October 16, 1985. These include the Town's previous General Plan, the previous zoning 1 r r ~ ordinance (No.9 N.S. as amended) and the Hillside Design Guidelines. 2. Under the old zoning ordinance, the property was zoned RPD-l. The proposed project is on a lot of 60,025 square feet. The project consists of a main residence of 14,622 square feet. a garage of 955 square feet. a guest house of 1,030 square feet and a gate house of 450 square feet which in the aggregate equals a lot coverage of 19.3 percent. 3. The project as submitted does not comply with provisions of the previous General Plan Open Space Element regarding ridgeline development. Specifically, Open Space Elemeni Policy B.6. states that ''where development occurs near ridges. the visual impact shall be minimized...." The general standards in the Open Space Element also state (at page ii) that "ridgelines shall be preserved through siting'and building location controls to minimize visual impact....'. The proposed home sits directly on the Tiburon Ridge. the primary ridge of the Tiburon Peninsula, and as designed by the applicants presents a major visual impact on the ridge. The design presents a large, minimally articulated mass on the ridge which would be clearly visible from Mount Tiburon and other areas in Tiburon. The size of the house (approximately 16.500). the high percentage of hardscape (48%) and the siting of the building within the building envelope all tend to maximize the impact of the proposed home on the ridgeline. 4. The project as submitted does not comply with the provisions of the RPD-l zoning for the site. Specifically: (a) Zoning ordinance section 1O-4(D)2 states that no accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in height. Both the proposed guest house (16 1/2 feet) and the gate house (18 1/2 feet) exceed this height limit. (b) Zoning ordinance section 10-4(H)2.b requires development in this zone to minimize the impact on ridgelines. For the reasons stated in Finding 2 above. the project as submitted does not attempt to minimize the impacts on the Tiburon ridgeline and in fact tends to maximize the impacts in order to maximize a view of the downtown San Francisco skyline. 5. The project as submitted does not comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance's site plan provisions (Section 11.1) and the Hillside Design Guidelines. Specifically: (a) Sections l1.1(E)1 and 3 require the review of buildings with respect to their relationship to and impact on surrounding properties and existing buildings. The proposed home presents a minimally articulated two story mass toward both Gilmartin Drive and Mount Tiburon. Insufficient setback/buffer areas are proposed to mitigate this mass. The solid stucco wall and trellis system around the parking court along Gilmartin Drive, in conjunction with 2 r r ~ the proposed outbuildings have the effect of intensifying the massing effects of the project. The proposed project is approximately twice as large as the average size of other homes in the Gilmartin area, based on Exhibit B attached to the DRB staff report. (b) Sections 11.1(E)3 and 11.1(F)2 of the zoning ordinance and Goal 1, Principle 4 and Goal 2, Principle 11 of the Hillside Design Guidelines address the visual impacts of a proposed building and landscaping. With respect to the proposed project, the massing of the buildings, the siting of that mass Within the building envelope and the proposed specimen oak in the parking court negatively contribute to the visual impact of the project. (c) Section 11.1(F)2 of the zoning ordinance and Goal 2, Principle 8(B) of the Hillside Design Guidelines require the review of landscape and hardscape to preserve privacy and mitigate negative impacts. The combined coverage of structures and other impervious hardscape (tennis court, parking court, etc.) is 48 percent of the total lot. That combined with the location of the main structure in the building envelope leaves inadequate room for landscape buffering. 6. Denial of the proposed project does not violate the terms of the 1988 settlement agreement between the parties: (a) The applicants contend that the settlement agreement allowed them a thirty foot (30') building height as opposed to the twenty-one foot (21') limit previously on the property. While the agreement did raise the maximum permissible height, it still made any building subject to site plan and architectural review. In addition, the General Plan and zoning ordinance applicable to the project both require such review to ensure compatibility and harmony of the project with the surrounding physical environment. (General Plan Open Space Element Policy B.5 and Housing Element Policy B.1.A and Zoning Ordinance Sections 10-4(H) and 11.1) The DRB and Council did not rule out a 30 foot high structure, but the project as currently designed is not appropriate for the site for the specific reasons enumerated in the findings above, (b) The applicants also contend that their project was not reviewed under the 1985 standards and policies as required by the settlement agreement. Both the chairman of the DRB and the council made it clear that they did apply the appropriate standards and policies in reviewing the application. Moreover, the evidence submitted by the applicants regarding floor area ratios ("FAR") and lot coverage of other homes in Tiburon did not show that the incorrect standards were applied. The evidence did show that there have been other homes approved in Tiburon with comparable FAR's and lot 3 r r lr coverage, but the applicants own information shows that on Gilmartin Drive and Mount Tiburon Road, the areas closest to the proposed project, almost all of the approved homes have smaller FAR's and lot coverage than the applicants' proposal. Under the General Plan, zoning ordinance and Hillside Design Guidelines, the appropriate comparison' has always been to adjoining properties and neighborhoods. In addition, the applicants own representative Stated that homes approved in 1985 tended to be smaller than those more recently approved under current standards. PASSED'AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on:November 18, 1992, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERS: Friedman, Thayer, Nygren NOES~ _: _ COUNCILMEMBERS: Kuhn, Thompson AYES:_ ~ ALVIN R. KUHN, MAYOR Town of Tiburon AlTEST: 4